How Does Prop 8 (marriage) Pass While Prop 4 (parental notification) Lose?
Propositions Precincts reporting: ~95.0%
* 1A: High-speed rail Yes 52.2% No 47.8%
* 2: Farm animals Yes 63.2% No 36.8%
* 3: Children’s hospitals Yes 54.7% No 45.3%
* 4: Abortion notification Yes 47.6% No 52.4%
* 5: Drug offenses Yes 40.2% No 59.8%
* 6: Criminal justice Yes 30.5% No 69.5%
* 7: Renewable energy Yes 35.1% No 64.9%
* 8: Gay marriage ban Yes 52.0% No 48.0%
* 9: Victims’ rights Yes 53.2% No 46.8%
* 10: Alternative fuels Yes 40.1% No 59.9%
* 11: Redistricting Yes 50.5% No 49.5%
* 12: Loans for veterans Yes 63.4% No 36.6%
(and how did High-speed rail get through? That's a surprise to me. Maybe California thought "high" meant marijuana or something. You gotta read the fine print in those tricky ballot initiatives. I bet there are a lot of disappointed pot heads out there this morning, just now realizing it's one more enormous financial burden on a completely bankrupt tax base in California).
So, how did you fare on the state-wide initiatives above? I think I'm about 50/50 right now.
Comments
I don't think I agree with your premise about "unprecendented conservative turnout" -- it may have been unprecedented in numbers, but liberal and/or anti-Republican turnout was also unprecedented in numbers.
This would also explain the passage of 1A, 2, 3, and 4.
Did you see that San Diego County voted for Barack Obama by 6 points or so?! I would never have predicted such a thing.
California has never been bluer. But is it really that strange that even a very blue state would go along with the redefinition of marriage? There are 2 blues in California: the poor, likely Christian, working and middle class who may or may not feel wronged by the powers that be; and the rich, likely anti-Christian, middle and upper class who sneer at even their blue neighbors of the other kind. The former blue will side with the red on gay marriage any day.
But you're right -- that 4 did not pass baffles me.
Better ads.
$$$ talks...
David Turney
Site Editor
Remember that, in the end, it is 10-20% of voters who swing these things in the end. I don't think that this group is particularly thoughtful and they are very susceptable to propaganda. Hence, the importance of the Proposition 8 propaganda war in the 2 weeks leading up to the election. There was no such war for Prop. 4.
Remember that Proposition 8 was losing until the clever Yes forces began to portray same-sex marriage as something that could restrict or affect everyone's rights and indoctrinate children. That was the key turnaround in the race - Yes turned it from being a referundum on taking away gay rights (which they would have lost) and turned it into a referendum on homosexual ideologues persecuting ordinary folks and their children (which they won). Proposition 4 in the end was successfully tagged by the No side as threatening girls and their rights. I saw no Proposition 4 counterattacks to this. So in the end Proposition 4 was a referendum on taking away girls' rights (which we lost).
I suspect low visibility and nearly absent marketing of prop 4 had a lot to do with it's demise. That's the simplest, most obvious opportunity lost, I think.
For several weeks now, however, there have been good theories circulating on both sides about the Obama turnout in California--especially among blacks and hispanics--propelling Prop 8 to victory (thanks, Obama). For the time being, traditional marriage probably enjoys more support among the Obama voting bloc than does the pro-life position, which is fairly well entrenched among democrats at this point.
The Prop 4 / Prop 8 split result may evidence this theory about Obamians pushing 8 to victory.
David Turney
Site Editor
Ah, the high triumph of liberty! May we sacrifice all so that "adult" males can impregnate teenage girls without fear of accountability.
How but the irony of this being an outcome of "feminism"?
The teenage girls would like the same freedom from accountability the boys have. Fair is fair, right? They don't realize the price they will pay for that freedom is much, much higher. Teenage girls should be given protection under the law, not unlimited freedom.
The goal of feminism has always been to dehumanize women by stripping them of their sexual role in society as child bearers. It is a trend toward death, which is apparent in the population decline of western (feminist) nations.
The teenage girls would like the same freedom from accountability the boys have. Fair is fair, right? They don't realize the price they will pay for that freedom is much, much higher. Teenage girls should be given protection under the law, not unlimited freedom.
The goal of feminism has always been to dehumanize women by stripping them of their sexual role in society as child bearers. It is a trend toward death, which is apparent in the population decline of western (feminist) nations.
In a society which does not value the importance of extended families, the "rights of grandparents" are never considered. I daresay, many grandparents do not act as heads of their families in these matters.
On the Props, I was about 8 for 12. What I think many peole missed on Prop 4 was that it had less to do with "a woman's right to abortion" than parents being informed and involved in the health and well-being of their children. With all this press for parents to be involved in their kid's lives, why should they be kept in the dark about this the most significant life/health issue their daughters will be faced with? And yes, there were provisions in this prop to protect the girl if one of her adult male relatives were the impregnator (e.g., father, uncle). I agree, this one baffles. BTW- did the "medical-use" marijuana law pass?
Fr Robb